Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?

[Scabby Joe]

So, this is an idea of what I mean when I talk about unnecessary suffering. I my world I recognise that although chickens may be quite tasty, this is a trivial reason to exploit these creatures. It is unnecessary. For the sake of argument, let's say I substitue lentils in my diet for chicken. Now please make your arguement of how my consumption of lentils causes unnecessary pain and suffering.

What is trivial to you is not trivial to me. The pain of the chickens is necessary to my non-trivial delight in chicken marsala.

Then I simply take from that I would not want to know you as a person. I would sugest that you have a Christian-like, Western take on animals, that you believe that you are somehow special, perhaps created in the image of god. I fail to understand how a person can be so flippant. Albert Schweitzer sums up my opinion of you:

“Anyone who has accustomed himself to regard the life of any living creature as worthless is in danger of arriving also at the idea
of worthless human lives.”

---

I can give that to you in it"s entirety, now, do you figure that it's impossible to raise chickens ethically? Does this argument somehow lead to ethical vegetarianism, or just a more ethical omnivorism?

Wait. We are trying to have a 'real world' discussion here. I think that you are agreeing with me that chicken 'production' in the circumstances I describe is unethical. Are you saying that there are real world examples of chicken production that involve no pain and suffering?